Slashdot Mirror
FBI's Wiretapping Demands May Nix Verio Deal
An Anonymous Coward pointed to a story on the AP wire, writing: "Why does the FBI and US government have problems with this merger? Is there some sinister wiretap access deal between the current US ISPs ? [From the article:] 'An NTT spokesman told the Journal a pending U.S. government review of the deal is a response to FBI and Justice Department concerns that law-enforcement agencies maintain access to Verio's Internet structure to obtain wiretaps and serve subpoenas for information. ... In telecommunications deals, the FBI has asked for assurances that only U.S. facilities be used to handle U.S. traffic. The FBI has insisted the companies employ U.S. citizens to handle wiretapping activities.'" A fellow-traveling A.C. points to coverage on CNNfn. Does this bother anyone?
So when the CIA and NSA merge with foreign intelligence agencies to create Echelon and surveil US corporations and citizens, it's ok, but prevent the FBI from doing the same, and it's no-go.
It's all so much clearer to me now, this is all just a turf battle.
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
I think this is more about the right to tap and not an acusation that Verio is tapping anyone. By law, the FBI does have the right to tap lines (following the correct proceedure, of course) and they wantt to make sure that they maintain that right.
kwsNI
so what would happen if you really pissed her off
:)
Same thing she always does. Kill people.
Finkployd
The Judi Bari case occurred in the 1990. I would also be surprised to find that the FBI didn't try and tap some phone lines of anti-WTO organizers (especially after the reasonably successfull work in Seattle. I know of one person, here in Canada, who had her phone tapped for political activity in 1995. As she put it, "About the only interesting thing they got out of it was some really nice recipes". Other people can probably point to other recent examples.
Taking civil and political rights for granted is probably our greatest risk in losing them. Fighting to maintain such rights is far easier than a fight to get them back. Unfortunately it's not easy to see the value of the fight until we're obviously in the latter situation.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
He was a blond-haired (blue-eyed?) conservative who "served his country" in the military and probably voted Republican before he was arrested for the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil in recent history. I know of no evidence that he announced his plans to blow up Oklahoma over any phone line that the FBI bothered to tap.
I could further point out that, although Martin Luther King is now considered a Civil Rights hero, the FBI didn't just wire tap him, they tried to discredit him with their wiretap info. As for the people who shot MLK, the FBI probably considered them good, upstanding members of the KKK.
NOW you can try and justify violations of, and limits on, our civil rights "so the government can protect us".
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You don't want to know what it means when I type "I moan in ecstasy".
Of course I'm not gonna post this, honey! What do you think I am... Stupid?
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
How will they know that you are not doing anything illegal, unless they monitor you in the first place?
That is an extremely dangerous place you are going. You may also wish all employers be granted full access to strip search employees daily, just to make sure they aren't stealing company property or secrets?
I sure hope your post was a troll or a sick joke.
Disclaimer: I work for Ericsson, but the views expressed here are my own and not those of my employer.
---
Of course not. That would be naive, to say the least.
But it's also naive to ignore the fact that LEA have access to "tame" judges at all levels: local, state, and Federal. These are judges that ignore patently fabricated testimony by officers under oath, that allow tainted evidence.
The Supreme Court, despite upholding Miranda recently (thought they rather grudgingly admitted that it had become part of the nation's culture -- perps know Miranda better than cops, having seen it on Cops and a myriad movies and tv shows), have ruled that illegally seized evidence is admissable if the officers acted in good faith. Uh huh.
We've come a long way from "Turn 'em Loose Bruce".
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
A little naive, but not as much as you think.
A) No, I don't think anyone does, but the odds are high that if you are being tapped, someone is going to come a knockin'. Otherwise, they discover it was a waste of their time and they throw the tapes in storage for a while just in case, and then they toss 'em after a couple of years.
B) Yes. In fact, if I really gave a damn I'd do the research and bring up the cases. I know there have been cases were it was discovered at trial that a tap was illegally obtained and after the case was thrown out the defendant sued for damages and one. It may come as a surprise, but most judges are really big on the Bill of Rights, and are not to keen on cops who decide to ignore it.
C) True, but law enforcement has the right to prove your guilt, so long as they act in accordance with the terms of search & seizure. Innocent until proven guilty, really only applies to the trial process, law enforcement is free to assume your guilty.
D) You are absolutely correct. And the reason why the system (as a whole) works. Occassionaly some in the process gets out of line, and someone some where else has to yank them back into place.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Actually, in this case, the authorization for the wiretap does not come from themselves, they have to get a court order from a judge. They can't just randomly wiretap people's communications without a reason. It is similiar to getting a search warrant, you have to get a court order for that. Are you suggesting that we should stop allowing "lawfully-authorized" searches as well?
---
Why does the FBI worry? It's not like US law isn't enforced in other countries already. DeCSS, anyone?
That still doesn't explain the 1 in 10 ratio, the expense of supporting that is one reason service providers are making unhappy noises about CALEA.
Cointelpro was in the 60's. That was a completely different time. Granted that history repeats itself I'm trying not to live in a world of complete government power or in a world where criminals run freely. It's just where your balance of government power is. That's why I said in my initial post that I still did not know what I wanted. I see the positives and the negatives to both sides. So at this point I'm "indifferent".
Maybe we should let the Chinese goverment set up a telcom in the Washington DC area? Yes, the govt has reasons for controlling radio/tv/telcom ownership by other countries.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I'm certainly not saying that it never happens, by any agency, at any classification level (no matter how deep you make it into the TS-SCI world, there's always weird stuff going on somewhere above), but it never happened in my department, and never to my knowledge anywhere else.
Chris
We all know that the U.S. government wiretaps. This article isn't about whether or not that is right. Wiretapping is normal, and there are, on occassion, real reasons why wiretapping is the best way to go about solving a problem or answering a question. I know-- as part of my job I analyze FBI data. It would be foolish to assume that ALL governments don't have some form of surveilance in place to check up on those aspects of their citizens' lives that warrent it. The Japanese constitution, however, prohibits the Japanese government from any form of wiretapping. (Not to say that all governments always stick to their constitutions -or equivalents-, but...) That the FBI feels compelled to say, "we don't believe you, we don't trust you!" to the Japanese government is perhaps excessive, but well within the realm of normal FBI activity.
In the Techserver article it is stated that the FBI is asking for assurances (asking for assurances -- they're not allowed to actually interfere with international issues.) that U.S. facilities handle U.S. telcom traffic. Here's the real issue: if this starts becoming a standard, it has cascading implications for the involvement of the U.S. in the global telcom industry. How can we participate in what is by nature a global entity when we're supposed to draw firm and distinct lines between "us" and "them?"
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Ummm, that's not necessarily the case, especially with the current makeup of the Court. The Justices who are "tough on crime" hold a solid majority, although Rhenquist and Scalia surprise me somtimes. Wiretapping has traditionally been held by the Court to be within the realm of powers granted to the Federal government, and very few wiretapping cases seen favorable outcomes as far as civil libertarians are concerned. As such, I doubt that there would even be enough votes cast for the Court to hear such a case, yet alone have an outcome that would be unfavorable to the LEAs.
- Rev.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I agree with the above poster. Our goverment has to be involved in things like this. While they may seem to be involving themselves for the wrong reasons at a glance and we all immediately jump to discredit and say how horrible of a injustice this is, we need to think clearer. If the gov were to allow mergers without fairly robust investigations(about the only thing they seem to not investigate is patents but I won't get into that now) we would be in for a world of trouble. Suppose they were to allow mergers of the proportion of AOL and Microsoft merging. Think about it. They have to prevent some merging for that reason. This merger is seeming to be a problem because they do not want the ability to lose investigative rights to these boxes. There are times when the gov agencies need to be able to monitor boxes for activity. Think of how useful the monitoring of the script kiddies was in the story earlier today. If the FBI or state police computer crimes divisions gets that stuff it should be fairly easy for them to bust a script kiddie. I may be strange but I think it is a good thing if they can put a kid on probabtion or short jail time to keep him and maybe a few others from DOSing my servers. Oh well too much rambling need more sleep.
I am 31337 or something.
It's a lot easier for a police service to get this kind of 'favour' done if they don't have to do all of this politics bulshit with civilians who might just ask questions.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
they can't catch the evil pron runners that would take recources away from figuring out who is really under 13 on ICQ.
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
How would they (the Feds) lose that access due to the NTT purchase? Don't foreign corporations doing business in the US have to abide by US laws?
I think there is something else going on here that has not come out yet. Why is NTT interested in a small-time Colorado ISP, that's operating at a loss? Follow the money.
This is the beginning of the M$ counter-strike against the US govt...
"The Internet is made of cats."
Well, I've just posted non-anonymously, so we'll soon see if you're bullshitting. I rather suspect that you are. In the meantime, I suggest the following course of action:
1) Look at this thread
2) Note the number of responses dated *after* your "Troll Warning"
3) Feel worthless.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Here we go again.... The US saved the world.. this is getting boring now. Education anyone?
Useful i would agree with, but common? As i would understand it, you do have to get the permission of a federal judge to set up a wiretap, and have it be admissable as evidance.
as for why criminals use the phone and what have you? i don't know, guess they're just trying to get on the next showing of "worlds dumbest criminals"
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
I wish the FBI would just back off and accept the fact that business is now global, and the US can't control every company in the world. It's fear and territorialism like this that's going to hold back a lot of benefit for NTT and Verio customers.
+---+
-----
"The crowning intellectual accomplishment of the brain is the real world."
I give not a phat phlying fsck if I come off sounding like a rebarbative oligophreniac, but you sir (or ma'am), are a schmegegge... I joined this country's Navy to defend the freedom of myself and my countrymen, at the expense of my own life if need be, and I will be goddamned if I will see the military organization transmogrified into a group of glorified jackbooted thugs. I doubt there is a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine in the country who would disagree with me. ITSN Eric W. Sprague AKA Kronoman
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
Now, this is just my gut feeling, but I think the FBI's concerns over access are just a ruse. The real concern (from a national security standpoint) is more likely that NTT (the buyer, Japan's national telephone monopoly) will use the tapping capabilities built into Verio's networks for gathering of intelligence (economic or otherwise) as an agent of the Japanese gov't or corporations.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I sincerely hope you're trolling here, or you're seriously missing the point... No kids that I know of have been arrested for talking about bombs, but I know more than a few who were suspended, or even expelled. Hell, I got busted just for mentioning the Anarchist's Cookbook... Of course, that's not a government issue, but the point is the pervasiveness of paranoia. It's sickening, is what it is.
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
Personally, i don't care for wiretap protections. I think they are outdated, and i think that the idea of government regulation in the information industry is a stupid idea.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
In the united states, only citizens of the US are allowed to spy on the citizens of the US. Even though the constitution (that paper that our government officials wipe their butts with on every occasion they get) prohibits it. Think about it, Our government cant trust a forginer to spy on us, that forginer might spy back!
Everyone forgets that this is the land of the double standard, Liberty and freedom for all! but we'll punish you if you dont agree with the Govt. (Kinda sounds like the ideals that hitler spoon fed his people.... and what did he do to the people that spoke out? I forget.... Oh yeah...)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You make a point that is dangerously close to the truth... Look at (although you may not see the connection, you will...) the number of abandonware ROM sites getting killed (I understand killing N64 and PSX sites, they're still making money off these, but NES and SNES? Really...), the whole DeCSS seizure, it shows paranoia and invasiveness spreading like a virus...
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
It's regardless, not irreguardless, squid-for-brains... Sorry. This argument has me ranting and raving...
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
Two FBI fiascoes of late involve the shooting of an unarmed mother carrying her baby and barbecueing a church congregation. Both cases should have been handled by the ATF, which is yet another problem agency. The man in charge, Dick Rogers, wanted his men to receive bonuses and promotions for these vile acts. I hear Mr. Rogers is no longer with the FBI, but I am sure he is not getting the internment he justly deserves. The FBI is not interested in the liberty of ordinary citizens, and indeed is willing to sacrifice them in large numbers to receive good press coverage. Janet Reno accepted responsibility for the deaths of children at Mount Carmel, but has yet to turn herself in for proper punishment. Don't hold your breath waiting. Do read, and live by, the Benjamin Franklin quote about liberty and safety.
Hey, great argument.
"The honest would never object. If you object, you must not be honest."
Except you left out a few other categories of people who should have something to fear:
commie pinkos
chinks, gooks, and japs
faggots
anarchists (and union organizers. They're probably pinkos anyway)
nigger-lovers
religious fanatics (like Koresh)
gun nuts (like Koresh)
animal-rights loons (PETA are pinkos too)
hippies (they're all either pinkos, faggots or bums)
bicyclists (what, are they too stooopid to drive?)
crips (well, they're ok as long as they keep their mouths shut and don't get any ideas from their pinko friends)
Ketzer,
take a look at some history books.
No place is free from oppressive, even violent, maintenance of social conformity. Sometimes laws are (inappropriately) used as tools, sometimes law enforcement agencies and their employees act illegally to threaten and harm people they dislike. It happens every couple of years somewhere in the US. At some point within the last few centuries, you could have been *killed* for being identified with one of those groups. I hope you're not so naive as to believe that it isn't still happening, and can't happen in the future.
I don't know who the next wrongly oppressed group is going to be, but I think I want to make sure that they have the tools they need.
Frankly, there's a bunch of FBI who should have been thrown into the ocean for that kind of dictatorial, un-American betrayal of everything a free country and democracy should stand for. And hold your tongue about "since then" because you don't know what's going on now.
Besides, how does this make the argument that the US government needs more power to spy on it's own citizens? You are fucking weak.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
The leap from the FBI monitoring everybody to the FBI requiring employers to monitor everybody durring business hours to disperse costs (and thus, employers gaining the right to strip search in the interest of national security) isn't very far of a leap.
For the record, there already is a strongly regulated intelligence agency monitoring people for the security of the state. I, as a US citizen, just happen to think they aren't regulated enough (i.e. they have too much access already).
If the US is not the kind of country you wish to live in, then please, find another. I, however, have no problem fighting (to the death, if necessary) to maintain the right of my children to discuss anything they wish freely. If they wish to joke about blowing up thier school, fine. I'd prefer they don't, but I'd still defend the right to. Acting on such discussions is totally different, and completely unforgivable. And, geez, isn't that already illegal?
Which is worse....the FBI wiretapping the american
public, or the american public being deluded into
believing that its ok?
-"You'll have plenty of time to sleep when you're dead."
No, the reason they can't catch the evil pr0n-runners is because all their agents are too busy pretending to be under 13 while on ICQ! :) :) :)
And why would NTT replace native English speakers with their own people? It'd be cheaper to host the servers in Japan, burning bandwidth rather than the hassles of importing workers into the US.
Note that current US laws are such that while a communications service provider may be required to provide certain information to a LEA, they are also prohibited from viewing that information themselves. Matters not if the workers are citizens of the USA or some other country.
If the worker is in the US, they are subject to the local laws; and they aren't supposed to listen in or peek. If the subsidiary is in the US, it is subject to the local laws. So why is the FBI expressing concern and wanting those assurances?
Quite Correct. and jsut for the record: The DOI was drafted in 1776, the Constitution in 1789 at the close of the convention.
"First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
-- Unknown
You have to keep a sensible balance. On the one hand you don't want to give some stalker the ability to go out and prey on people with a $50 scanner, but on the other you need to leave the door open a little so that a proper warrant can be served. There have been studies that suggest most felons are not the most technically savvy individuals. Felons that can not create their own crypto often rely on commercially available solutions to hide their communications. You would think a directional antennae, and a rapid signal aquisition receiver would not be out of budget for the FBI, but this ruling may be intended to help the local law enforcement agencies as well. Its a more complex issue than it first appears if you think about it.
Well, seeing as the telephone companies have been known to tap for years, why is this such a huge surprise. Not saying that Verio is doing such a thing, but you can even find packet sniffers on the machines they control in their own network. There could be all kinds of stuff someone could run even from a leased box. I'm the government has to take some measures to catch the evil pr0n runners!
Cyber-Newscaster Ana Nova Sold for $144 million
This is the best argument I can think of for NOT availing yourself of the VPN services offered by many ISP's.
Much better to roll your own with one of the many hardware or software products that will easilly allow you to create your own encrypted VPN's
Then, provided the encryption is strong enough, let them tap away.
Question Reality
And, actually, the FBI doesn't have to sift through all that data. It's up to the ISP to log everything that a LEA monitored customer of the ISP does.
you bring up kiddie porn in a political debate. That suggests that you ain't up to no good
Verio remains a US company. US subsidiaries of foreign companies of course operate under US law. No international law involved
This whole thing stinks. I think they do something illegal and are afraid the Japanese won't comply the way the current Verio owner does.
f.
Echelon has the data stored already. It could pay for itself by selling info to the FBI and others.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I'd say it probably is becuase they are concerned about how much control they would have. I mean, there's a fair amount of paranoia here, but still - we all know that the US Govt/FBI/Misc US "Agency" will stoop to all sorts of levels, to find "Un-American Activities". Hell, Slashdot could be deemed Un-American.
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Mong.
*
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." from Foundation and Empire by Isaac Asimov
And what would Mr. Asimov have it be, the first refuge? Violence should always be the last refuge.
If challenged in the supreme court this would easily be deemd unlawful. This is a clear violation of an individuals right to privacy. Which the supreme court has set a precedence to uphold. The FBI could request information from the isp. But thats as far as their jurisdiction should go.
Your right, but his ramblings did make me think of economic espionage. Japan is pretty lax on what they consider "legal" business practices (yeah, even worse than here).
Just a thought.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
On the other hand, seeing as most of the time the WTO behaves like the US' jailyard bitch I doubt it...
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
..would probably love to see the deal fall apart, from what I hear. Any employees got clarification? Heard you got shafted on benefits and whatnot...
That is so monumentally naive as to be borderline retarded. Sue the FBI for wiretapping? Yeah... A couple of questions:
A) Do YOU have the technical resources to be able to to tell they are wiretapping on your phone, let alone an ISP?
B) Do you really think that such a lawsuit could be successfully brought, let alone won?
C) "Innocent until proven guilty." Repeat this 10 times until it sinks in, please, because it is the foundation upon which our justice system is built.
D) Many times what is legal is a matter of controversy. That's why we have Courts and lawyers. If it were cut-and-dry we could have some M$ run expert-system doling out justice. The fact that we still have humans behind the bench is good evidence that the law is sometimes a mirky bog. Just because the FBI thinks something is illegal does not necessarily make it so.
- Rev.
We would be safer? SAFER??
Do you think that all criminals/psychos have non-government jobs? Or maybe you think the US government is magically different than all other governments in history and would forego the opportunity to "take care of dissidents"?
"Safer", he says. Cripes!
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
What would tell the family of a young woman who was killed a few years ago by a convicted murderer who was released from prison, even after he murdered two more people while he was in prison? He didn't like the grade he received on a paper he wrote in a prison English class, so he killed the teacher. If I recall correctly, he also murdered his own father. So he was released, only to kill again. These are the kind of people I was referring to.
You're preaching to the choir, here, bud. I was only trying to make the point that the story the lead this discussion was written in such a way as to mislead the reader about the real reasons for the FBI's action.
Don't feel bad, you're about the 3rd person to respond who doesn't seem to be able to understand the point, and the fact that you don't address that point doesn't make your comments about MLK, McVeigh, et al any less valid...
Well, first, I don't need your permission or instruction to do a damn thing, nor is the logic of my remarks dependant on anything you may or may not have said; and secondly, I was not, am not, and will not try to make any such justification as you apparently suppose.You might try directing your comment at some of the many (a majority of the posters, I believe) here who are trying to make precisely the justifications you mention...
Watch where you point that thing!
"The Internet is made of cats."
Looks like the left hand doesn't know what the right one is doing. Check out this article
no. I'm not worthy.
---
click a button, feed a hungry person!
Get off my launchpad!
How do you get a score of 4, AND get marked as Flamebait? Interesting moderation system here...
lf.o
Yeah, great, we have TWO superpowers stealing our and reading our email and laughing at us instead of one. Look, my ass only has one hole... they'll have to take their turns.
lf.o
For that matter, foreign companies operating in the US operate under US law - unless the US has started offering extraterritorial status to businesses.
And, true to KGB form, they will be saying, "What are you gonna do, sue us? Because then we'd have to bring the tapes into court. And then your wife would hear what what you've been getting up to." And you will say, "What? You're on crack, aren't you?" And then they will play you a tape, and dammit, it'll sound a heck of a lot like you, and she'll sound a heck of a lot like someone you know, but the conversation won't be familiar...
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
Perhaps, but if you look at the U.S. Code, Title 47, Chapter 1, Section 12, it reads: "it is made the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, by proper proceedings, to prevent any unlawful interference with the rights and equities of the United States under all acts of Congress relating to such." Title 47 serves as a vital part of the legislation passed regarding interstate communication.
Furthermore, take a look at Section 13:
equal advantages and facilities in the interchange of business, as herein provided for, without any discrimination whatever for or adverse to the telegraph line of any or either of said connecting companies, or shall refuse to abide by or perform and carry out within a reasonable time the order or orders of the Federal Communications Commission, shall in every such case of refusal or failure be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall in every such case be fined in a sum of not exceeding $1,000, and may be imprisoned not less than six months; and in every such case of refusal or failure the party aggrieved may not only cause the officer or agent guilty thereof to be prosecuted under the provisions of this section, but may also bring an action for the damages sustained thereby against the company whose officer or agent may be guilty thereof, in the district court of the United States
Maybe the FBI will think twice before proceeding with their actions.
How is this any different than China telcom companies can only buy certain hardware that has various sorts of wiretapping and filtering capabilities in it as demanded by the Chinese Government, stuff that just could not be sold in the US, Europe, etc.?
I recall reading several news articles about this in the past.
I think the real reason is the FBI losing jurisdictional convenience, as the FBI does not have a mandate for international actions from the US Govment (but the CIA & NSA do...).
Well duh. Of course it's a thousand times easier for them to do their job when they really need to do it if all involved parties are US companies. I'm all in favor of helping FBI agents catch "real" criminals, but they're going to have to face the reality that sooner or later, their jobs absolutely will get more difficult as the network starts to take over. Whether they like it or not, they will have to give up this foolish fight and just learn to do their jobs in a networked world. They might as well start now.
Irreguardless if you followed the directions to the letter, if the truth is found in some evidence you got illegally, does that make it any less valid? I don't think so. This isn't to say that they should go around collecting things without any warrent at all, but in the cases listed above, I can see it as permissable. Besides, it's something of the same with searching a car with traffic cops. They have to get your permission, but if you resist, they can arrest you for resisting them, and open it anyways.
It's either that, or perhaps come up with a new, loosely worded search warrent stating that 'So long as it pertains to person X (that you're investigating), any evidence gained is legal'. Which would you prefer they do, since they both have the same effect, and that is being able to prosecute criminals even if they stepped outside the bounds they were prescribed to in order to get the proof of wrongdoing. More criminals punished, I'm content.
Are you suggesting that we should stop allowing
"lawfully-authorized" searches as well?
Oh, no, I like how the FBI has the resources to investigate wrong doings. The only problem I have is that not only can they investigate with great ability, they can also enforce with almost no limits. Me thinks the enforcement should be delegated off to local police. Balance of power and all that.
Otherwise, someone influencial can really get the good 'ol boys in this tight organization on a campaign to really fix a person up good in the criminal justice system over even a simple mistake of associating with the wrong group. "Have you any affiliation with communists or used drugs in the past?"
I realized about 3 seconds after posting. I was thinking of Sprint and DTT merger talks. My bad.
Uhm. Hehe. My nick is actually taken from the title of an album by Joe Satriani. Not a popular artist, just one I admire (and the first word I saw when I was trying to think of a nick ;). Nothing to do with being a political extremist. Trust me, I'm not.
Not paranoid, either. Just willing to die for my (and your) freedom, which you seem so quick to give away.
Good troll on your part, me thinks. I've tired of you, and it looks like I've run out of troll snacks. Thanks for playing, tho!
No, read my post. I started with a quote by Ayn Rand to set the tone. I then gave you my ideas. Perhaps try reading more than the first 4 lines, unlike the moderators seem to have done. Then comment all you want.
Fash tips, Fitness advice, Photos - OlsenTwins
You sir, May lick mah balls.
I do not think that the government is the best body to do this, but then again, who else has the resources and the interest in such a project.
The people do!
Fash tips, Fitness advice, Photos - OlsenTwins
Taps are only inadmissable in court if they are illegal. A legal tap does not have to alert you that you are being taped.
I wasn't aware that the FBI had any mandate, or even legal authority to tap ISP lines. Has this changed? Or did Verio just bend over for them? Why does the FBI have any say in what Verio can do, anyway? Couldn't they just annul their agreement with the FBI and then go on their merry way?
But anyway, I personally don't really see a problem with the FBI wanting to snoop, its not like hackers, or even just the ISP itself can't listen in. Just use Encryption for everything you do. That would be a much better solution, in many respects. With encryption, the only one you have to trust is the guy who wrote the software, as opposed to some big, faceless ISP who had been making secret wiretapping agreements with the FBI.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Those willing to give up a little freedom for security do not deserve either.
:)
Ben Franklin (Paraphrased due to a bad memory
This space intentionally left blank.
ok, so defending my american heritage makes me a racist. it's cool, i understand. Anyway, this isn't an issue of race, it's an issue of jurisdiction. The FBI obviously can't tell the japansese, or the chinese, or the french, or the german what to do. I wasn't saying that "the Japanese are known to be an evil race, consisting of thieves (they stole the Chinese character set and now call it Kanji) and rapists (hentai)!" All i'm saying is the simple fact that if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, and the same thing applies to this situation. The FBI can't trust ANYONE (local cops, foreign police, etc.) to do their jobs for them. I reiterate my original post: Go FBI! (Flame all you want, i like it :))
-Superb0wl
-Superb0wl
It's not that I'm lazy....it's that I just don't care.
I have never worked for an ISP, but I have been under the impression for some time that almost all ISPs, and especially the big ones and AOL and other portals, snoop on their subscribers.
It doesn't take company policy for any subscriber's privacy to become betrayed. It just takes one employee with the access rights who can install loggers and sniffers for any reason or for no reason at all. And, should the FBI or NSA want your data and transaction records, they can deal with such individuals to get what they want even if the higher ups in the company do try to respect the privacy of their subscribers (unlikely but possible).
It's well known that your personal, financial, medical and insurance data has been sold repeatedly by your "trusted" bank and hospital and insurer, regardless of the law. Any and all of it is for sale. They figure that the trade in personal data they are entrusted to keep personal is more valuable than the penalty should they get caught.
The solution is to make an example of those who betray trust with heavy criminal penalties - meaning hard time in prison and confiscation of all assets. This should apply to law enforcement officials who snoop without a warrant and to employees of ISPs who snoop on customers and sell personal information to the highest bidder.
What amazes me is the number of slashdot posters who think this kind of snooping is all right, probably because many work for ISPs and do it all the time. Anyway, they view themselves as system administrators (another name for wanna be programmers who can't code) and seem to have contempt for "dumb users" or "lusers". Really talented technical people don't feel that way about non-techies and especially about customers whose subscriptions are feeding them.
What is even worse is that most of the "lusers" out there really don't care about privacy. The attitude is "I've got nothing to hide" and that only criminals have anything to fear.
They will start caring when it gets to the point that they suddenly can't find employment because their names are in a database of "suspected" troublemakers or because of some four letter words in email they sent ten years ago, or when their insurance is cancelled because of some "suspected" risks revealed in a blood test. Things will have to get really bad, and then there will be a bloody revolution. But I think it will come to that especially when there is a sustained economic downturn. Then the "average joe user" out there will notice that wealth and power has been accumulated and concentrated into the hands of those who control a relatively small number of very large corporations. These things occur in cycles. and right now we are enjoying good times.
Again, I am very disappointed in the response to this article by slashdot readers, who seem only concerned with their sense of power over "dumb users" and their own careers in making big bucks in boring sysadmin and ISP jobs. I no longer regard slashdot as much of a site for intelligent discussion of technical and other issues. It seems to be just a place for mediocre techies to display a false sense of superiority and justify their meaningless lives.
Not when the state executes the wrong guy, who was convicted on fabricated evidence, and who petitioned the state to allow him to prove hids innocence by DNA testing, which the state refused to allow in the name of so-called "closure". That's an incentive for the real killer to commit more murders.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Hmmm. How about a distro of Linux that has everything built to do crypto out of the box. No dl'ing ssh and compiling, getting pgp and tweaking, just roll. I'd imagine the hassle is the biggest reason people don't use crypto.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
thats why you are a Coward...chode...you can keep to the topic.
as for the taps...i forgot that was for private party. oops...but admittedly there should be some sort of regulation...fucking FBI gets to do whatever they want sometimes...
those guys that were holding out in the midwest argued that the FBI was not a legal entity and they couldn't hold them for anything...wonder if there is any validity in that.
JediLuke
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
Me thinks the enforcement
should be delegated off to local police. Balance of power and all that.
But the problem here is that local police only have jurisdiction in their local area. Computer crimes almost always involve many polices depts and areas, hence the need for a police agency that has right to a broader area. This gives rise to the FBI, which then needs the CALEA to get proper information.
thanks....thats why you are a Coward. fucking trolls are so fucking stupid it ASTOUNDS me!
as for the topic i forgot that it was for private taps.
JediLuke
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
I'm gonna need documentation for that one. Whoever you heard it from may have been exaggerating for effect...
And, um, what does "Do you really care that much about your thought" mean?
-jpowers
-jpowers
Find out which Providers are involved in this seedy business, and spread the word to friends and
family.
Orgs will be less cooperative with big brother if it will seriously impact their bottom line.
yah, I keep forgetting to. =)
sorry, I'll do it in a minute, I'm fixing my resume right now... can you guess who I work for? =)
---
click a button, feed a hungry person!
Get off my launchpad!
Our legal system was designed to prosecute people after the fact. Not to prevent them from breaking the law (which never works), but to try them for it afterwards. This is why the laws that are passed based on an argument from prevention never bear themselves out. Like VB under Solaris, it's just a bad idea.
Examples: (if you care...)
"The death penalty is the best deterrent to violent crime."
The murder rates in Texas and Florida pretty much kill that one.
"Toughen the crack laws so there'll be less B&Es."
B&Es went up in most major metro areas, back in the 80s. So did hard drug use.
"We need the FBI to read our e-mail to protect us from terrorists!"
Real terrorists wouldn't plan their Wile E. Coyote bullshit online. That's what stupid script kiddies do, not fanatic killers.
The reality of the matter is, they want this just because they know they can have it. It's politically useful for everyone involved: the FBI can use their data to get favors from Congress and the Prez, Congressmen/Presidents can use the data to beat their opponents, and anyone who questions their little scam can be publicly humiliated when the info is turned against them. The courts take a lot of flak for interfering with legislation relating to law enforcement, but they're really all we have left these days.
Speaking of which, the republican candidate raised the money he did on one promise: pack the Supreme Court with opponents of the Sherman Antitrust act. Keep your eyes open for that, it'll bite us later.
-jpowers
-jpowers
As shown here, one of the tools that the NSA uses is the Paracel Textfinder .
From the webpage for the textfinder: A single TextFinder application may involve trillions of bytes of textual archive and thousands of online users, or gigabytes of live data stream per day that are filtered against tens of thousands of complex interest profiles.
Nope.
Talk about naive. Do you honestly think that no terrorist group out there today is capable of 1) obtaining a small (suitcase-sized) nuclear/biological device and 2) getting it into the US?
That is why they invented the anonymous informant. It doesn't have to be admissable in court if it can be laundered into probable cause for a wiretap or warrant.
Burn your house down? All for the children, of course.
This
Well, I guess you could just use encraption technologies.
If the FBI can't wiretap they can't protect us. It is in the best interest of the American people. How do you think the FBI catches terrorists...with wiretapping. Don't be so niave. The FBI does exist to serve the best interest of the American public and if they weren't doing their job you would know about it!
If so, stand up and wave so I can cheer. =)
---
click a button, feed a hungry person!
Get off my launchpad!
The problem isn't so much that it's an EU company. Hell, there are US defense contractors owned by EU companies. The problem is that it is a German company. There are laws that arouse from the holocaust and the disclosure of how much spying the DDR (East Germany) did on the public that make it difficult to share information with the gov't.
You have laws against sharing all sorts of information, creating central databases, harvesting infromation. Hell, I'm suprised double click isn't going to sue.
The problem is there could be a time where the Feds requests will put them at odds with German law, and when the cards fall, Germany has greater pull than the US.
Oh wait. I just saw your line about foreigners. Nice troll. Nevermind.
I can't believe the load of crap I'm reading here...this is very simple:
- The FBI can already tap whatever they want to with a court order
- One of the reasons they might be tapping someone would be...(wait for it)...suspicion of espionage! (Shocking, eh?)
- If such suspicion existed, they certainly wouldn't want a foreign company in on the tapping, now would they?
The FBI is simply saying that they would want an assurance that they would still be able to tap, and that they wouldn't have to rely on a foreign company and non-American citizens (who might see or hear something top secret) to carry out the court order. In the words of the immortal bard, you are all making "Much Ado About Nothing."It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
Contrary to some of the other posts, I don't think this has anything to do with regulating the internet (other than on the face of the argument). It is arising from the FBI, et al.'s concern about being able to do their jobs the way they have in the past. They want to be able to have access to what person X said/wrote to anyone else at anytime the FBI/et al. believe they need to. That said, I think they need get over it. They cannot continue to monitor all aspects of communication the way they have up to the 80s. They will have to start using their brains and good old fashioned leg work to get the info they want. In some cases, that may mean that they do get everything they want for a case, but that is part of the price of the USA being in (or towards) the front of the technological boom that the world is in the midst of. The FBI/et al. can't expect to limit competition and the "free"-market just because they might loose access to some of their current monitoring mechanisms.
The FBI has insisted the companies employ U.S. citizens to handle wiretapping activities
Whew! I'm sure glad they don't want any foreign nationals spying on me.
Anyhow, think about this - when was the last time YOU had anything on the wire that may be of interest to any government agency, really now? Nobody gives a damn about us and our little lives..get on with it..
I dont even want the government to know about my snot collection.. The fact that they probably don't care doesn't matter one bit! The government should know my name and social security number and that's it... government is toooooooo big and nosey as it is...they work for us after all... how much do you know about your boss?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Now, go ahead with your flaming responses pooh-poohing the very thought that the federal government should be treated as a dangerous (if useful) animal, instead of as a perfectly trustworthy and benevolent shepherd for our flock of citizens.
The government already has the ability to wiretap. This measure would only make it easier for them.
As far as the manpower issue goes, there's more than enough processor-power to make up for that.
I agree that the Feds have not only the right, but an obligation to stop threats to our national security - I just don't think that's what this proposal is all about.
Browser? I barely know her!
Shouldn't this be a moot point? Aren't foreign companies who do business in the US still subject to the same laws as everybody else?
This isn't a private, diplomatic communications channel that were talking about. This is a public access medium that must incorporate here, pay taxes here and issue financial statements according to US law.
Not to say that I trust the US Government to safeguard privacy, but this is ridiculous. If I were a terrorist bent on sending messages over the internet, there are any number of methods to encrypt these messages publicly available. Once more, it doesn't take much for a small group to gather the resources here to blow up, let's say, a federal building or other large structure.
Maybe the federal government should stick to building expensive ABM systems to ward off nuclear attacks from the dangerously technologically advanced 3rd world countries.
Bother me? No, outside the US, we only have to worry about Echelon.
The beneficial effect of the church and crown standing as independent mega-powers, from the perspective of the common folk, was that after paying ludicrously high taxes, they still had to tithe!
Checks and balances are good. Getting screwed from two sides at once is baaaad.
No US citizen has ever hurt his own country in espionage or other national security matters. And besides, those damn foreigners just can't be trusted. The pigs are watered and ready for take-off.
Sigh.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Fair enough. How does it know which ones to monitor? Hmm, better monitor everyone, just to be safe.
I am not advocating a police state!
You are, in fact.
Another diturbing point is that when Director Freeh was pushing for CALEA he frequently used "electronic survalence" numbers when describing the need for "wire tapping." Also, he never actually sited one case where wiretapping made the difference in a conviction. Most of this information is in the "Electronic Privacy Papers".
Also disturbing is that after CALEA was passed as a _more_ balanced act, the FBI has continued to add demands that weren't in the origional, such as imediate location of all cell phone traffic.
Although I grudginly admit that wiretaps are a necessary evil for modern LEA's, I am rather worried about the manner in which our FBI and other federal agencies conduct themselves these days.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Back in August the LDP pushed a bill through the Diet which gave wiretapping powers to law enforcement agents. Sorry dude.
jim
If I'm not doing anything illegal, they have no business monitoring me. It's that simple.
The data haven is more for stuff you want people to see!
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Why was this moderated to a (-1)? It's not the most well-thoughout argument, nor does it keep w/ Rand's philosophy in the slightest (neither Rand nor Peikoff or any of her little disciples would have agreed w/ this), but then, we have people posting stuff like, and I quote, "Suck my dick you raghead.." Given that, it seems a bit excessive to say this of all things desrves a negative rating.
I used Kiddie porn as a glaring example, i couldn't think of much else on such short notice.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Please read my page Why You Should Use Encryption.
If you get your mail from and put web pages on a hosting service, then at a minimum you should use one that provides secure shell (ssh) and secure copy (scp) access. One such hosting service that does is Seagull Networks. Does anyone know any others?
When you retrieve your email via POP or load a web page via FTP your password is being transmitted in the clear. You have no control over which routers and cables it passes through in the process, so you have no way of knowing if someone's running a sniffer on a compromised host. Usually you have no knowledge even of the route, unless you go to the trouble to run traceroute regularly.
You can download your email via an encrypted channel with ssh port forwarding if your mail host provides ssh. The instructions given are oriented to the BeOS but apply in general to any OS for which an SSH client exists.
If you run a website that uses passwords please consider allowing the users to enter their passwords via SSL (https).
If you use websites that require passwords, please use a different password for each site. At the very least, use a unique password for your important sites, like your email, web pages and financial sites. If you keep the passwords in a file (which you may have to do because there are so many sites that take passwords), encrypt the file.
Be aware that most sites that have passwords do not encrypt them, otherwise they wouldn't be able to send you your password reminder in clear text. I've even used sites that mailed out password reminders in the clear every couple months just to prompt me to use the service. Note that anyone at the site who has root access, anyone who compromises the site or anyone running a sniffer on or near the site will be able to catch your passwords.
Also I think it is very likely that many websites are provided for no other purpose than to collect passwords for later use by crackers - beware of that free trial and use a unique password if you must accept the offer!
Use the anonymizer or, if you have Windows 95 or 98, Freedom to protect your privacy while you web surf.
Finally, do you use a laptop computer? Do you have files on it that you don't wish to share with the random stranger who might steal it someday? How about your competitors? A thief won't likely be in the direct employ of your competitors but they may recognize the value of the information and sell it to them, or even post it on the net for fun.
And remember in this information age the information on our computers is more valuable than the hardware itself, and unlike car stereos can continue providing value to a thief because, once it is fenced, it is still available to be fenced again.
Depending on your OS, you should use PGPDisk or the Linux encrypting kernel on your laptop.
Consider encrypting important information on your desktop too. A friend of mine who is a software developer lost every machine in his company in a robbery - source code, strategic plans, and the customer database.
I know of two cases where laptops were stolen from intelligence agents, once during the Gulf war, and once from an MI5 agent while he'd set it between his legs at a train station. Good thing they used encryption!
Finally, read the Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems available on the Usenet News as comp.risks and on the web at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Wrong. The US government routinely screws up and to suggest that carte blanche US Govt access to any and all communications is justifiable is insane. Risk is part of life and nature. To suggest that if I have no privacy then I am safer, is insane. I would rather suffer the risk than trust some amorphous, irresponsible agency that claims to have my best interest in mind. Give privacy a chance.
Just because I still think that we should be able to say anything we want on the internet has nothing to do with the fact that I feel that the government might have some reasons where wiretaps are necessary. These are two unrelated issues. I don't see how I am being insincere, but if I am (as I'm sure you will), let me know.
What exactly do you feel would be safer?
Do you think the government's ability to creep into your personal life will somehow protect you?
From what? This measure would do nothing stop someone from assaulting, raping, killing, stealing, or any other crime the average American has to worry about.
The only ones who will benefit are the Government & Corporate Thugs.
Browser? I barely know her!
This is a flat-out admission by the FBI that they believe that the US owns and controls the Internet
No! The funny thing about the internet is how well it works without regulation. Compare with the chaos of say, the (heavily regulated) airline industry, and it works quite well. If you think that governmental regulation WITHOUT massive reduction of privacy is going to help stop DDoS attacks, I'd like to get the beeper number of your crack dealer.Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Are you insane?
No. Methinks you should look at yourself "Mad"Ahab.
What could be more right-wing-conservative nutty than stomping all over freedom in the name of some amorphous questionable wiretapping concerns?
They are not "amorphous questionable wiretapping concerns." They are direct investigations into wrongdoings. I don't care if you do it, if I do it, or if the government does it - so long as it gets done!
The funny thing about the internet is how well it works without regulation.
I disagree. DDoS attacks are on a rise, and honestly tell me - would you like to be a sysadmin working somewhere after your users violated IP laws with FTP? That's not a sign of a working system.
I'd like to get the beeper number of your crack dealer.
I see no humour in that. I do not see the correlation between my ideas and blatent drug use.
Fash tips, Fitness advice, Photos - OlsenTwins
Pardon my ignorance, but what is CALEA's full name (I assume it to be an acronym), or where could I find more information on it?
--------------------
Keep in mind the article said that Justice and FBI wanted to 'maintain access'. That implies they already have access and are actively using it. FBI already knows what tree you took a leak behind when you were two, be paranoid... be safe.
When in doubt.. do it on someone else's machine
Given the choice of:
- Keeping your business open to FBI wiretapping, and
- Not having your business open to FBI wiretapping,
what would people rather have?If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Slashdotters need to remember, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies are basically subject to all the same commerce laws that American companies are. This is why the floating of the Microsoft goes to Canada rumour was rather obnoxiously stupid. It could have shielded them a bit, but we still could have thrown a lot of huge fines and restrictions on what they could sell down here.
"The Internet is made of cats."
I'm not sure how I feel on this. On one hand I don't like the government being able to wiretap and interfer, but on the other I feel that everything would be safer if they did.
Not a single terrorist has been caught by the FBI due to traditional wiretaps. According to the 1999 Wiretap Report from the Adminstrative office of the US Courts, availabe at http://http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/1 999-report/default.html , in 1999 the feds were granted a total of 601 wiretaps. A whopping 504 (83%) of those were for Narcotics, 61 (10%)were for racketeering, 1 was for bribery, 4 were for homicide and assault, 3 for kidnapping, 2 for theft, 2 for exortion, and 24 for other crimes. Geez, terrorism isn't on that list at all!
I see why the FBI would want Only US companies dealing with US traffic. If you had a ligitmate reason to wire-tap say, a kiddie porn dealer, would you as an FBI agent want to have to deal with international law in a matter that would normally be covered under simple interstate issues?
.02 of devils advocating.
but at the same time, the FBI should make some attempt at modernizing the current wiretapping laws to allow for the "Globalization of the communications industry" (look mommy, a herd of coroprate buzzwords) Working under laws that are as old as the telephone is an absolute joke. But this is all under the impression that they have a ligitmate reason to be wiretapping in the first place
just
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
My question is why does the FBI have an unlimited say in what deals go through? Can they deny a deal for any reason, or are there strict rules about what's allowed for them to request?
You said: (I know I will not gain any points of friends by saying this, but I must speak my mind.)
Actually, you were speaking Ayn Rand's mind. Not your mind; Ayn Rand's mind.
There is a difference.
They are probably worried about the reverse problem, i.e. NTT sniffing packets too and from US Government servers and networks. That would make sense ,Verio provides service to a lot of Government agencies here in San Francisco
"Those who would give up liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin
I want to find a way to force the deal through just to piss off Reno. Of course she always looks mad, so what would happen if you really pissed her off.
Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?
...why is kiddie porn the default reason to give LEA's more power?
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Folks, the fact of the matter is that we live in a dangerous society. The America of today is not the America of The Donna Reed Show or I Love Lucy. Those in the law enforcement community must have a way to monitor those who pose a threat to us! Without a way to keep tabs on convicted felons, atheists, leftists, and foreigners (particularly Arabians and Asians who are here for engineering degrees) there can be little or no way to prevent the United States from being the target of something horrible (such as nuclear terrorism.)
It's all well and good to make noise about "privacy concerns" and yelp about "freedom", but the simple fact of the matter is this: reality is reality, and it must be dealt with. I am more than willing to give the FBI a little bit of wiretapping latitude if it prevents some homosexual tree-hugging enviro-Nazi from blowing up my favorite ski resort. People who do not plan illegal activities on the telephone have nothing to fear. It's that simple.
----
This debate between a limited powers goveernment vs a federalist one went on during Washington's time as well. IIRC, Washington rode the middle of the line with some federalist leanings.
Now if you said Jefferson, you'd be all set. Unfortunately for us, there are no Jeffersons, no Washingtons, to lead us out of the grip of the current system. Who do you vote for, a man who claimed to invent the Internet or one who wants to end anti-trust enforcement?
This should read "They are not supposed to randomly wiretap people's communications without a reason."
Warrant? We don't need no stinking Warrant!
So Virio handles 20% of the online traffic for S&P 500 report requests. I wonder if the FBI wants wire taps to prevent insider trading of some sort. I have a feeling that if a foreign company tried to buy any US company who's business was to display or allow trading of stock the FBI would be rather upset because it would interfere with their ability to prevent things like insider trading. My guess is this isn't just a, they are an internet company and if a foreign company buys them we can't snoop, but it is due to the fact that it deals with stock and therefore could possible be used for illegal stock trading which could damage the economy.
OTOH we could listen to all of the paranoid around here and believe that there is a government conspericy to turn the US into a Orwellian 1984. Just as Y2K destroyed the world, right?
Just a thought. One never knows with these things.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
If the US Constitution has the phrase "and the government must always have free and clear access to wiretaps", a close look will reveal that the ink there is about 220 years newer than all the rest.
YOu are advocating a state where people are no longer citizens, only vassals.
This is a grave error on your part. In fact, it is fascist at best. NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT I THINK, DO, SAY, OR COMMUNICATE OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHOM I PERSONALLY HAVE TRUST. The Government needs bounds, and severe restrictions on access to electronic communications is essential for individuals to even BEGIN to pursue liberty and happiness.
Rethink your trust in Government. The power must reside in the hands of the people first, then reluctantly be sacraficed only when necessary and on a case-by-case basis.
Ok, I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that this is wrong. I can just picture the head of the FBI trying to convey his argument to George Washington... it might go a little something like this: FBI: Yeah, were going to have to nix this deal... it compromises National Security.... Washington: Really, how's that? FBI: Well, ya see, we can't listen in on peoples conversations, and that presents a security risk to the American people.... Washington: So what your basically saying is that innovation , and people's rights to privacy should be waived when face with a possible security risk? FBI: Basically yes... Washington: You don't see any problems with this? FBI: Not really no.... Washinton: So, if I read you right, what your saying is that your right to the ability to listen in on private communication supercedes the right of the American public to engage in private communications.... FBI: Yep. Washinton: Here we go again... Now, I don't think this is in the best interests of the American people... this is in the best interests of law enforcement. Correct me if I'm wrong by shouldn't the FBI exist to serve the best interest of the American public?
You as a private citizen or a corporation cannot 'tap' someone's line at all. You can 'tape' conversations as long as all parties know that they are being taped. Law enforcement agencies must be granted permission to 'tap' a phone line and the tapes/transcripts are admissible in court and they don't have to have the periodic beep on a 'tap'.
"Say, boss, [beep] I dumped the bodies in the river like you [beep] said."
"What's that beeping sound, Rocco? You developing a speech impediment?"
Nah. I think the bad guys are smarter than that.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
That's a nice sentiment, but Benjamin Franklin wasn't living in a world where any Muslim nutball could sneak into the middle of Manhattan with a nuclear bomb in a suitcase, was he? To suggest that Franklin would have the FBI sit back and do absolutely nothing as millions of Americans died is plain ludicrous. In fact, the FBI did not even exist when Ben Franklin supposedly made that statement, so your point is completely moot.
I'm a lot less worried about a "Muslim" nutball than our own government trying to protect us.
First off, nuking Manhattan would be a pretty boneheaded move. American retalitaion would be of a magnitude I hate to even imagine. The terrorists know this and play by the rules. Their acts have to be enough to make the public fear them, but not enough to generate a dispropotional response from the US. For example, what's really stopping us from really going after Ben Laden instead of bombing his camps with cruise missles? You can bet that if he were to blow up a school bus full of American kids you would see a military response that would make the Gulf War seem like a picnic.
We also have intelligence agencies that deal with communication outside of the USA (NSA/NRO etc.) While they aren't allowed to spy on American citizens, how many of these terrorists are homegrown. (Then again, look at OKC)
My real concern is that the Federal goverment means well, but in their rush to "protect" us they start seeing our rights as getting in the way. So is the next step to suspend the 4th amendment entirely?
CALEA stands for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. You can get more information on the FBI website. You can also get lots of links by doing a simple google search.
---
How exactly does the FBI expect to tap an OC-192?
(or OC-48 or OC-3 for that matter)? This has
to be total BS.
They are probably worried about the reverse
problem, i.e. NTT sniffing packets too and from
US Government servers and networks.
Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution does seem on its face to prohibit wiretapping, at least by the government. However, NTT is arguably not part of the Japanese gov't and not subject to contitutional restrictions.
Remember that most large-scale Japanese corporations operate in the keiretsu system, where affiliated companies pass information, arrange financing, and generally cut deals with each other.
Also remember that we're speculating about NTT's actions in the USA, outside the real of Japanese constitutional protections. It's well known that the USA taps everyone it can outside its borders, thought this would be illegal at home.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The Verio NOC is in Dallas, Texas. Do they have any idea what it would take to move it to Japan? Or even to remove the current crew and replace them with Japanese NTT employees?
Quite a few American employees would be affected adversely if this merger fails at this stage, and all for the sake of political posturing.
---
click a button, feed a hungry person!
Get off my launchpad!
Everyone knows that the taps are inadmissable in court if you can't tell you are being taped. There is some obscure law that says that you have to have a small alert...like a beep to indicate you are being tapped...how this would play into internet connections i don't know...use ssh
how about a window that pops up in windows and says:
"you are being tapped" with only and "OK" button!
JediLuke
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
This tends to support my position that (JonKatz's blather about the "Corporate Republic" notwithstanding), the tension between Megacorp and State is likely to have the same beneficial effect as the medieval tension between Church and Crown. The fact that neither side has a particularly appealing agenda is less important than the existence of two (or more) great powers making life difficult for one another.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The fact that the FBI seem so worried about this sort of thing suggests that telephoine tapping is extremely useful, and really quite common.
Since its so well known that suspected criminals phones are tapped, why do criminals communicate by phone at all, when "Meet me at" type conversations and runners would be so much more secure.
Technically, you are correct, they don't have an Army, Navy or Air Force. What they DO have is called the "Home Defense Force", which looks a whole lot like an Army, Air Force, and a Navy
Some links for you:
http://www.jda.go.jp/e/index_.htm
will give you their english home page.
I'd call any group of people who deploy 2 types of Main Battle Tank, The Multiple Launch Rocket System, and a bunch of other high tech systems an Army.
I'd also call any "Naval Forces" that deploy 10 classes of Destroyers (including one class that is a variant of our Arligh Burke class ships with the Aegis AAW system), 4 classes of DEs, 3 classes of subs a Navy (Their air force flys F-15s, F-1, and is developing the JSX)
This situation highlights the need for users to be more aware of personal privacy, encryption, etc... I'm perfectly fine having the government attempting to eavesdrop on the Internet. Most of the stuff I do online would never in a million years interest the FBI/CIA/NSA. Anything that I do want to keep private (note this is not synonymous with illegal) I use PGP for. If people think we're going to get the government to drop their surveillance of the general populace, they need to put their head back in the sand. I can see the both sides of the issue -- privacy vs. government protection/national security. The govt ought to just slap a stipulation on the sale and be done with it. End user awareness and education is the key to this situation, not moaning and anger over the government's eavesdropping.
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
I don't know about you guys, but I am scared SHITLESS of a Republican becoming president. Were you outraged by DoubleClick's attempt to sell its consumer information? Well, I think we can safely say that things like that will be quietly swept under the rug in the future. Also, at last count, I believe that there will be 4 Supreme Court seats up for grabs in the next four years. The Supreme Court is the only establishment holding us back from the brink of complete fascism!
Excuse me, I need to change my underwear...
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
I know they need some connection to the internet somewhere, but why do they have an ISP? I would have thought they have their own infrastructure and connect to some large hub somewhere where they can encrypt anything going out. I don't know a lot about ISP and how large sections of the internet connect to one another, so I appologize in advance is this question sounds really stupid.
a) Well, first of all security agencies wiretap.
It is normal and necessary, there are quite real
investigational needs that have to be fulfilled.
In a better world where nobody would do anything
illegal this would not be needed, but in our
crappy little universe this is a necessity.
b) US jurisdiction only covers US based servers,
services etc. So in case of quite legitimate need
for wiretapping they may not be able to get
access due to services being provided abroad.
c) This also means that those abroad may have
easier access wiretapping traffic here -
legitimate security concern even among
best of friends in our world.
Anyhow, think about this - when was the last
time YOU had anything on the wire that may
be of interest to any government agency,
really now? Nobody gives a damn about us and
our little lives..get on with it..
I dont nessassarly disagree with what you say, but neither do i agree with it. I also believe much of the resistance to these sort of things stems from the fact that the internet is no longer a side attraction. Like earily radio, earily Internet was basically the domain of people truly interested in technology and playing with stuff . And like radio, as it has developed and the mainstream societies of the world have become involved, there has arisen a need for some sort of standard. The internet will never again be just the domain of geeks and scientists, and will never again just be something that tech. orentated people are interested in. When the 'net was small, self regulation was a perfect sceme, and common interest, ideas and standards were simply assumed, and held in check because people cared about the 'net it's self, and the opinions of their peers. Now the 'net is public domain, and there is no honor system or de facto self censorship and regulation. Because of that, government feels that it needs to step in and do the regulating. I do not think that the government is the best body to do this, but then again, who else has the resources and the interest in such a project.
What? - Einstein
You are overlooking the mechanisms of actual terror groups. Most of the more dangerous ones are sponsored by various governments around the world and this would be particularly the case with any that could get nukes. The U.S. govt. knows who sponsors these groups and would know who to retaliate against if they were to use a nuke.
And yes, you ARE advocating a police state. You clearly think that government can be trusted with unlimited power in the interest of "protecting" its subjects (notice I don't call them citizens, you are a subject in a police state, not a citizen). The bloody history of 20th century fascism and communism proves this is a lie.
Do you really believe that if the 4th Ammendment were repealed (something which is thankfully not going to happen) that the state would not hesitate to start abusing people's rights for all sorts of reasons? "We think you might have an illegal drug/gun/pirate-copy-of-Windows/can-of-beans/whate ver, we're going to need to tear your house apart." This is how totalitarianism works. You use an "extreme" case (like the fear of terrorism) to get a foot in the door which you then use for all sorts of other things. Nice try. How much did Tony Blair and Bill Clinton pay you to post this crap?
--
--
Nothing to see here. Mooooove along...
--
--
This is a flat-out admission by the FBI that they believe that the US owns and controls the Internet
I have to disagree with the assumptions you seem to be making. I don't see this as an issue of control (not that there aren't some issues there) but to enable the FBI to investigate criminal activity. Several people have mistakenly seen this as an attempt to control or prevent certain activities. Law enforcement agencies don't actually prevent crimes any more than fire departments prevent fires. Both respond after the fact. We get lulled into a belief that 'the system' will keep the bad guys from doing their bad deeds to us. This despite the evening news and maxims like, "There's never a cop around when you need one." It's the old idea that those sorts of things happen to other people.
I do think, as others have pointed out, that there may also be concern with regard to industrial espionage.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Okay, let's think about this.
For starters, this is about whether they'll have the capability, not the legal right, to tap. Legally they still need authorization.
With that in mind, lets look at a few cases to see if there's cause for alarm.
First case, say you're talking dirty to your girlfriend on your phone or having cybersex with some 40 year-old-guy in France, you probably don't want anyone tapping your line. You want your right to privacy. Understandable. You're not doing anything illegal, but it's potentially embarassing.
Well first of all, admit that you've already lost. Unless you are amazingly proficient and running a high security system and encrypting all your network traffic, somebody determined WILL be able to read your conversations. Be it a script kiddie or someone at NSA, if you're using a large network, somebody can compromise it. No law for the FBI is going to change that.
Having gotten over that, realize that the FBI is the least of your worries. The FBI doesn't care about your girlfriend, and they're not going to publish transcripts of you and the French guy. If you have anything to worry about it's your fellow citizens who are probably right now expressing concern over the FBI being able to tap them.
Second case, you're doing something minorly illegal. Warez, mp3s, fetching porn when you're not 18, whatever. Again, the FBI really doesn't care. They're not going to routinely tap random lines in the hopes of catching people like you, then arrest you based on monitored net traffic. It's way too much of a legal hassle to get approval (try going to a judge saying "we want to tap his line because the stuff we already got off his tapped line is really incriminating") and go through all the requisite paperwork to bring in these extremely minor criminals.
Third and final case. You're doing something REALLY not-kosher. You're a major kiddie-porn trafficker (the boogey-man of our day, like the 2000 internet equivalent of Nazis) or major Mafia or a drug lord or you're planning to blow up a building. Yes, be afraid. The FBI will have access to your net traffic. They will use that access, they will pay close attention.
However, if you're organized, like Mafia or drug lords, you're probably already encrypting the hell out of your traffic anyway, so odds are the FBI isn't going to be able to crack it easily.
So that pretty much narrows the list of people who should really be worried by this down to:
Kiddie-porn traffickers
Terrorists
And I doubt you'll find much sympathy if you're one of those.
From the FBI link:
CALEA . . . is to preserve law enforcement's ability to conduct lawfully-authorized electronic
surveillance . . .
I like how the law authorizes themselves power when they feel the need for it. The quote continued to disclaim thier reach of power with:
the public's right to privacy
How is an individual supposed to have privacy against a resourceful automated electronic self authorizing law body with immense resources including a wide range usage of deadly force and property seizure such as the FBI.
A person's house could be the next Waco if that individual might seem to object thier methods of questioning his existance.
What is the problem with the wiretap? If you find them tapping and recording you for no reason, you can sue because of the right of privacy. If you are doing something illegal, then who cares if they are tapping the wire, you're doing something illegal.
I believe you are mistaken in your assumption that the most important role of government is the protection of it's citizens. The role of government is to maintain common property such as roads, military, parks, and those things which are of benefit to it's citizens but which they cannot provide individually. It was mentioned by someone else that our legal system is set up to handle crimes AFTER they occur because to do anything else not only does not work, but impinges on the right's of the citizens. There will always be some evil that a government can hold up and say "Well this is so bad that we have to make sure no one has the chance to use it for a crime" and thus expand their power. People have to stop being so afraid and realize that LIFE IS NOT GUARANTEED by our government, by your god, by anything. Do not be so hasty to give away rights now out of fear for a tomorrow that you are told may happen by the same ones you are giving your rights to. The world is no more dangerous today than it was 200 years ago when the 4th was written. It may be possible for a single terrorist to do more damage at once, but over all we are much, much safer than we have ever before been.
A LEA could get "taps" on the dial-up or other connection points, but it makes it much tougher to snag that email as the monitored person could dial in from anywhere to any connection point to get their mail. The FBI much rather be able to have the server capture all mail traffic, so they have only one place to go.
This general concern holds for other telecommunications providers. CALEA is the requirements for providing access to telephone, paging, two-way radio, and cell phone systems for "tapping" by law enforcement agencies.
With fines of up to 10K $US per day to service providers who can not provide a CALEA port when served with a tap request, the government is serious about being able to monitor all communications of someone they are investigating. Moving the servers of a US provider outside of the US makes it harder to use that hammer.